ArticleScientific reports2025
Examining the impact of warnings on eyewitness memory.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior research demonstrates that eyewitness memory is susceptible to misinformation. Specifically, memory for an original event can be contaminated by post-event information. Recently, we found that susceptibility to misinformation is reduced when mock eyewitnesses are given a warning about the threat of misinformation either before exposure to the post-event information (pre-warning) or after exposure to the post-event information (post-warning). In the present study, we investigated whether the timing of the warning (pre-warning vs. post-warning) and warning frequency (one warning vs. two warnings) impact memory accuracy as well as metacognitive assessments of memory accuracy. In Experiment 1, we found pre- and post-warning similarly decreased the negative impact of misinformation on memory and increased the metacognitive assessments memory. In Experiment 2, repeated warnings (two warnings) also decreased the negative impact of misinformation on memory and increased metacognitive assessments of memory related to misinformation. However, these benefits of repeated warning came at the cost of metacognitive assessments of memory for information that had not been contaminated by misleading post-event information. These results suggest that warnings can improve eyewitness memory accuracy and support the relationship between memory and confidence; however, over-warning an eyewitness may result in under-confidence in accurate memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.